Press Releases


Entries in Republicans (180)


Johnson For President - Your Right to Vote is Under Attack



Your voting rights are under attack – by Mitt Romney and the national Republicans.

Mitt Romney doesn’t want Gov. Gary Johnson on the ballot.  It’s just that simple.

Clearly, the idea of giving voters a chance in November to vote for a presidential candidate who is serious about cutting spending, repealing the Patriot Act, ending the wars, and standing up for individual liberties is scaring the Republicans – and perhaps it should.

But rather than have a debate on these issues with Governor Johnson, the Republicans are trying to silence him.  In elections offices and courts across the country, Republican operatives and lawyers are trying to remove  Governor Johnson’s name from the ballot before the voters ever get a chance to cast their vote.  Fending off these attacks is difficult, it is unfair…..and expensive. 

You can help defend the rights of voters in those states.  Go to today.

In Virginia, one of the most difficult states in the nation to qualify for the ballot, our supporters worked long and hard to submit thousands of signatures, and election officials approved them – something not even Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich accomplished.  Nevertheless, a few days ago, the Republican Party challenged our petitions and forced us to devote precious resources to simply keeping Gov. Johnson on the ballot.  We succeeded, as you can read here: Gary Johnson Makes Virginia Ballot.  But it took a lot of time and money that could be used to buy radio and TV ads.

The same tactics are being used against Gov. Johnson in Pennsylvania, Iowa, Oklahoma, Michigan and elsewhere.  The story is the same.  Republican Party representatives and their lawyers are bringing frivolous challenges to our ballot qualifications – and making us spend our money to defend the rights of voters to support Gov. Johnson if they wish.  And they just happen to be doing so in key states where polls show Gov. Johnson gaining ground. 

Gov. Johnson needs your support to keep up the fight.

So far, we are winning these battles.  Just yesterday, an Iowa court rejected the Republicans’ challenge.  We prevailed in Virginia.  And in the past couple of days, Gov. Johnson has been placed on the ballot in both New Hampshire and Hawaii.  In all, we have qualified for the ballot in 43 states, and are committed to doing so in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

But the fight is just beginning.  Right now, we are having to go to court in Michigan and Oklahoma, and we have heard from Republican operatives that they fully intend to try to remove Gov. Johnson from the ballot wherever they can.

So, here is what we have to do:  Based on our experience so far, we know that it will cost at least $100,000 just to fend off these frivolous ballot challenges – and that is money we HAVE to spend.  With only a month or so remaining before ballots have to be printed, we must have those funds available NOW.  Please go to and contribute whatever amount you can to make sure we can keep up the fight.  Every dollar counts.

Your support and generosity have brought us to the point where our opponents are trying everything they can to keep Gov. Johnson off the ballot.  We can’t let that happen. Not even in a single state.  While the Republicans are flying around the country and hiring the most expensive law firms in places like Des Moines and Philadelphia, our attorneys are driving from state to state and depending on great supporters to help mount our defenses. 

We’re going to win, but not without your help.  Please contribute to our “Let Us Vote” fund today at It is essential that we raise $100,000 to keep up the fight – and keep winning.

Liberty MUST be on the ballot in November.  That’s what Governor Johnson’s campaign is about, and it starts with your help today.

Thank you for your friendship to Governor Johnson, and your support.


Republicans Try to Keep Libertarian Gary Johnson Off the Iowa Ballot 

Romney Supporters File Challenge Urging Secretary of State to Exclude Libertarian Nominees from the Ballot in November

August 27, 2012, Tampa, Fla.  Jay Kramer, a Mitt Romney campaign supporter from Washington, D.C., filed a challenge on Friday to keep Libertarian candidate for President, Gov. Gary Johnson, from appearing on the Iowa ballot in November. The Romney campaign hired the Des Moines-based Nyemaster Goode PC for the challenge, which will be heard by Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz on Monday at 3 p.m. 


"This is clearly a setup," said the Johnson campaign's attorney, Alicia Dearn. "The Libertarian Party had 2,000 petition signatures and should have been on the ballot without challenge, as they have always done in the past. But Republican Iowa Secretary of State Schultz — in violation of longstanding Iowa law — rejected the petition and required the Johnson campaign to caucus at the state fair. There, the Romney campaign surveilled the Johnson campaign's activities for the sole purpose of bringing this eleventh-hour challenge," Dearn said. 


The Romney campaign's challenge was filed Friday afternoon and set for a hearing on Monday afternoon. The 106-page challenge includes photographs of Johnson supporters asking fair-goers to support having Gov. Johnson and the Libertarian Party offered as a choice on the ballot. The Republicans' challenge claims that the state fair signatures should be thrown out because the signers are not Libertarians.


"The challenge is legally frivolous," asserts Dearn. "You don't have to be a registered Libertarian to want a third choice on the ballot. Iowans deserve to choose for themselves who to vote for, which is why Gov. Johnson should be on the ballot." 


Unlike many other states, Iowa has a perfect history of allowing third-party candidates onto the ballot.


"Iowa is one of the very few states that has never kept a general election presidential candidate off its ballot," said ballot-access historian Richard Winger. "It is a policy that saves money and work for elections officials, because Iowa doesn't need to tally write-in votes for presidential candidates when all such significant candidates are on the ballot."


According to Dearn, the Romney campaign is using similar tactics to keep Gov. Johnson off the ballot in Michigan and Pennsylvania.


CEI Today: Labor union Republicans, highway bill, and war on salt

HIGHWAY BILL - MARC SCRIBNER Support the Broun Motion to Instruct; Oppose Future Highway Trust Fund Bailouts

Yesterday, CEI circulated a coalition letter urging the members of the surface transportation reauthorization conference committee to support Rep. Paul Broun’s (R-Ga.) motion. Broun’s MTI [PDF], which is nonbinding, would have the House instruct conferees to restrain highway bill spending to levels at or below the expected Fiscal Year 2013 Highway Trust Fund revenue. The alternative is bailing out the Highway Trust Fund, which is dangerously close to insolvency, with general funds. A vote in the House is expected. > Read the full commentary on

>Interview transportation policy expert Marc Scribner


Union Leaders, Not Members, Determine Union Political Donations


Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum dismisses the fact that 38 percent of Wisconsin union households voted to retain Governor Scott Walker as “exactly the opposite of surprising,” because “[f]or better or worse, about 37% of union members vote for Republicans, both nationwide and in Wisconsin.” That is indeed the case.

However, Drum’s acknowledgment that over a third of union households vote for Republicans on a consistent basis highlights a major problem with union political contributions: They go to fund candidates and causes which a large segment of union members do not support.  > View the full commentary on

> Interview Ivan Osorio

> Keep up with all labor policy and politics at




Government Restrictions on Salt Consumption May Cost Lives

FDA officials want to restrict the salt content of food, even though that could indirectly lead to increased obesity rates, more heart attacks, and “higher death rates among some individuals,” by making it harder to market low-fat foods. If salt levels are curbed, people will compensate by eating fattier food, since there seems to be a trade-off between salt and fat. > Read the full commentary on

> Interview Hans Bader


Also featuring...

Union of Concerned Scientists Not Very Concerned With Accuracy

Seasteading for Enterprise on the High Seas

Taxpayers Win as Dulles Rail Drops Pro-Union Contracting Rules

CEI Podcast for June 7, 2012: MACT the Knife

A new EPA regulation, the Utility MACT, is intended to cut mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants. According to the EPA’s own estimates, the rule is one of the most expensive in history. Are the costs worth it? Policy Analyst David Bier, co-author of a forthcoming CEI study, thinks the answer is no.

Ten Thousand Commandments and Growing


Ten Thousand Commandments 2012

An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State
May 15, 2012

The scope of federal government spending and deficits is sobering. Yet the government’s reach extends well beyond the taxes Washington collects and its deficit spending and borrowing. Federal environmental, safety and health, and economic regulations cost hundreds of billions—perhaps trillions—of dollars every year over and above the costs of the official federal outlays that dominate the policy debate.

CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.  For more information about CEI, please visit our website,, and blogs, and  Follow CEI on Twitter!


NRO editorial says Gingrich inspires backers … and opposition.

A new NRO editorial, "Hour of Newt," says, "For Republicans to choose Gingrich . . . would be a gamble, with everything from the Supreme Court to Obamacare to our nation’s alliances riding on the outcome."

It can be found on National Review Online at


Hour of Newt

By The Editors

South Carolina Republicans delivered what former president George W. Bush once called a “thumpin’” to Mitt Romney. Republicans have too many misgivings about Romney — misgivings we share — to give him a shortcut to the nomination. He will have to earn it, if he can. So far he has been content to deliver lifeless platitudes, apparently under the impression that saying he “believes in America” is the way to clinch an argument rather than begin or summarize one. Instead of projecting strength, he has wilted under challenge. For a while there, his position on releasing tax returns was starting to look as convoluted as the tax code itself. He has done little to persuade conservative voters that he will fight for our priorities.

But attention must now turn to South Carolina’s big winner, Newt Gingrich. If the question before South Carolinians was whether to declare the nomination contest over by choosing Romney, the question before Floridians is whether to make Gingrich the front-runner. Romney is now running a sharply negative campaign in order to capitalize on this distinction. Since neither Gingrich nor Romney can make the case that he is a purebred conservative or a world-beating political talent, both are now essentially relying on a negative argument: The other guy is unreliable and unelectable. There is enough truth in both indictments to explain the continued appeal of other candidates’ joining the race.

Among the present candidates, we continue to prefer Romney and Rick Santorum over Gingrich and Ron Paul. Our opposition to Paul is based on our disagreement with a foreign policy based on what we consider a dangerously naïve and narrow conception of U.S. interests. Our opposition to Gingrich, by contrast, is not based on any philosophical disagreement. Among Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum, we find only minor ideological differences. None has been a consistent small-government conservative in office; all are running on conservative, and similar, platforms this year.

Thus it seems to us that the key question is which candidate can best make that platform a reality by first beating Obama and then governing successfully. Exit polls suggest that South Carolina Republicans considered Gingrich the most electable candidate. He argues that he would make the strongest Republican nominee because he would be able to beat Obama in debates — a claim that his strong performance in the Republican debates so far reinforces.

Gingrich’s best moments in the debates have come when he has hammered the press for liberalism and triviality. Republicans have responded positively, in part because they think, as we do, that the mainstream media has had too much influence over the Republican nomination contest because of all of these media-sponsored debates. The general election will be very different. It is unlikely that the debates will be as numerous or will matter as much; they rarely do.

The public at large dislikes the media too, but not with the same intensity that conservatives do: Gingrich as nominee would have to train his fire on Obama, who will be able to fight back as John King could not. Nor will the public at large be as impressed by Gingrich’s willingness to attack Obama as a clueless radical as Republicans are. (If voters decide in 2012 to reward the most slashing or sardonic debater before them with the presidency, it will be a first.) When Republicans found themselves in tight spots during the Reagan presidency, they waited for their leader to give a speech to show them the way forward and rally the troops. When Gingrich was Speaker, Republicans never sought him to intervene in legislative debates to turn the tide.

There is much more to general elections than debates, and there is much more to the presidency than giving speeches. On an intellectual level Gingrich knows this, but he has little experience either in contesting elections with large numbers of voters of varying views or in running large organizations. Romney has executive experience, unlike Gingrich or Santorum, and in past elections voters have seemed to value that experience. But at least Santorum, like Romney, has been elected to statewide office before, and like Romney has shown himself able to reach beyond the Republican base in doing so. Santorum’s record in this regard beats Romney’s, since Santorum won statewide in Pennsylvania twice. Only Gingrich has never been elected to office from anything larger than a congressional district; only Gingrich has never had to reach beyond the Republican base vote to win an election.

Gingrich has been a nationally known figure for a long time: when the economy was booming and when it has been in a slump; when Republicans were on top and when the public disliked them; when the national mood was sunny and when it was sour. Amid all the tumult of the last 18 years there has been this constant: Gingrich has never been popular. Polls have never shown more than 43 percent of the public viewing him favorably at any point in his career. Gingrich backers say that he is inspiring. What he mostly seems to inspire is opposition.

It should go without saying that Gingrich also offers more material than the other candidates for Democrats to drive his numbers in the wrong direction. Any Republican nominee will draw criticism for being too biased toward the rich. Not every Republican nominee will be attacked for cruelty in his personal life.

None of these candidates can be guaranteed to beat Obama (or run a successful White House), and under the right circumstances any of them could. For Republicans to choose Gingrich, though, would be a gamble, with everything from the Supreme Court to Obamacare to our nation’s alliances riding on the outcome.


ALG urges House Republicans to reject any tax increase from Supercommittee 

Nov. 9, 2011, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today in a letter urged House Republicans to reject any tax increase deal that may come from the so-called congressional Supercommittee.

"The American people are deeply concerned that a gargantuan tax increase will be included in that proposal," Wilson wrote. 

He is encouraging members to sign a Republican Study Committee letter against more taxes so that "members of the Joint Select Committee understand that any tax increase will be dead on arrival in the House of Representatives."

"We don't have a problem that we tax too little, we have a problem that we spend too much," Wilson wrote, noting that since 2007, spending has increased $1.043 trillion, but that revenues had only dropped $393 billion "[w]ith tax rates essentially the same," accounting for an aggregate $1.436 trillion increase in the deficit since then.

"That means 72.6 percent of the problem is too much spending, and at least 72.6 percent of the solution must be dramatic spending reductions. The other 27.4 percent of the solution then must entail economic growth, job creation and encouraging investment here in America," he wrote.


Letter to House Republicans, Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson, Nov. 7, 2011 at 11-7-11.pdf .

Page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 36 Next 5 Entries »